Barack Obama needs more than just prizes
COLUMN
|
|
|
By Kari Huhta
Granting the Nobel Peace Prize to US President Barack Obama over a week ago is one more in a series of accolades that he has received from Europe. They keep on coming, as the presidential term has continued for nine months.
The praise has not been completely free of expectations, nor is the prize granted by the Norwegians anything of the sort. Obama is expected, in return, to show understanding and give support to Europe. In this respect, Europe mainly means the European Union and NATO, and the countries that are trying to join the organisations.
The need of the countries of Europe to reinforce their transatlantic relationships through repeated appeals for loyalty suggest a kind of uncertainty. There are reasons for this.
First the good news: Obama’s ascendancy to the US Presidency turned the international atmosphere so thoroughly in a positive direction that it certainly is worthy of a Nobel prize. It is not just about the departure of George Bush and the deescalation of the war in Iraq. Obama has committed himself to multilateral diplomacy, which is to the benefit of Europe. The Norwegians specifically cited the change in atmosphere as a reason for the prize, not on uncertain future achievements.
When multilateralism is implemented in practice, Europe and the United States are important partners for each other. This applies to both the old organisations and in the changing compositions that will come after the economic crisis, where there will be completely new countries sitting at the table.
What is not so good news is that there is no going back to the past. When the economic crisis is over, the United States will have increasingly growing interests in areas outside of Europe.
What will happen as some forces bring the continents closer together, while others pull them apart?
Viewed from Washington, the answer is that it largely depends on Europe.
From the standpoint of the United States, one indication of future expectations on relations comes from the office of Pam Quanrud, the Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. She is responsible for relations with the Nordic Countries and part of Central Europe.
In an interview at the end of September, Quandrud spoke enthusiastically in behalf of relations between Europe and the United States, but added that the United States needs stronger and more capable partners in a broader area than before.
The message that is heard repeatedly in Washington is that the United States is offering more cooperation, but it wants more than mere prizes in return. This applies to more than involvement in crisis management in Afghanistan, but it certainly applies to that as well.
In discussions with the new civil servants of the Obama administration, it is easy to see differences in approaches and emphasis toward Europe, but the policy line has been agreed with Obama and his aides. At the State Department, Obama is mentioned more often than Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.
Much more has happened than just Bush’s departure. An entire generation has left the key posts of foreign policy, and the generation after them appears to have been partially sidestepped.
In their slow appointment processes, the Department of State and the Department of Defence have gained many relatively young officials who have been trained in a uniformly excellent manner, who will have significant roles in implementing US foreign and security policy in the coming years. Their knowledge of Europe is perhaps a bit too good from Europe’s point of view.
No big differences can be felt between the two departments. During the Bush years there were plenty. It is not to be expected that Finland would have good relations with the US Department of Defence, and poor ones with the Department of State, which was the case a couple of years ago. This is assured, in the final instance, by the close cooperation between Secretary of State Clinton and Secretary of Defence Robert Gates.
However, there are differences in emphasis in assessments of the significance of the European Union. The role of the EU, compared with bilateral relations between the United States and the countries of Europe, is shakier when the theme is politics, but overwhelming when the subject turns to trade and the economy.
Europe needs to make its own decisions on what it wants, Quanrud pointed out. Another civil servant was more direct, and asked why the European countries have separate embassies in Washington. A trade policy representative felt that it is self-evident that relations between the EU and the United States will grow stronger during the Obama presidency.
A significant change and a possible problem in relations between the United States and Europe is the policy of the Obama administration toward the new member states of NATO and the EU.
The United States is trying to shake off the remnants of the division that was established during the Bush period into “old” and “new” Europe, in which special attention was lavished on the countries that used to be part of the Soviet sphere of influence. As a result, those countries supported US policy more than the others.
At the same time the United States seeks to improve its relations with Russia, and to cancel the missile defence system that was planned for installation in Poland and the Czech Republic, and which angered Russia.
Taken together, these changes awaken concern in the new Western countries that the importance of the countries for the United States will decrease, which in turn could weaken the security guarantees granted to them by NATO and the United States.
According to Quanrud, when the US holds talks with the former countries in transition, it is talking about more than just transition, or of the countries themselves; the discussions with them also involve global questions, as is also the case with other countries. At the same time the US insists that the new kind of missile defence system will strengthen the NATO security guarantees better than the version that was rejected.
The security relationship between the United States and Europe will be formulated on paper in a new strategic concept of NATO, which is in the process of being drafted. The aim in it is to eliminate the concern of new members about NATO that the organisation might change from being a defence alliance into a crisis management organisation. To achieve this reassurance, there is an emphasis crisis management as a way to help maintain defence readiness.
The ultimate message is, however, that the world is changing and the relationship between the US and Europe is changing with it.
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 18.10.2009
KARI HUHTA / Helsingin Sanomat
kari.huhta@hs.fi
|
| 20.10.2009 - THIS WEEK |
 Barack Obama needs more than just prizes |
|
