Europe and United States reaching out to each other again
COLUMN
|
|
|
By Pentti Sadeniemi
It seems as if it were again acceptable to talk about "the West" as a political and cultural concept. Western, democratic Europe and the United States have at long last begun to energetically emphasise what unifies, rather than what separates them.
The election battle is in full swing in the Untied States. Each of the remaining three Presidential candidates - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain - herald in their own way a change after the lamentable term of President George W. Bush.
None of the three are interested in finding scapegoats on this side of the Atlantic, as many of Bush's ideological comrades were doing just a short time ago. Naturally it is not possible to know what kind of foreign policy will be implemented in Washington during the time of the successor. Still, one can imagine that it will be less arrogant and less burdened by ideological slogans than the line put forward by Bush.
On this side of the Atlantic, the change in the presidency is anticipated with even greater hope than in the United States. Trust in Washington collapsed in Europe during the Bush administration, as it did in much of the rest of the world, but very few see this as a positive thing, or hope that it would remain so. The change in the occupant of the White House is seen as a golden opportunity to restore the health of the Atlantic relationship.
As is normal, great expectations raise the danger that reality will not be able to rise to the same level. Voices of warning have been raised on both sides of the ocean.
Americans warn against expecting too much from the outcome of the election. They feel that the Europeans should not imagine that the next President of the United States would reverse everything that Bush has done.
In Brussels Americans are warned against imagining that the mere relief at Bush's departure would get European governments to agree to every request of the next US President.
There are good reasons for the warnings. The polarising dispute over the war in Iraq and the fury sparked by Bush's persona and by his arrogance have obscured the fact that relations between Europe and the United States have not always been warm even during the time of his predecessors. Already before Bush, the United States has acted alone without regard for its allies, and will certainly reserve the right to do so when he is gone.
It is also true, as one hears repeatedly in Washington, that the new President will find the same problems on his desk that Bush has had to wrestle with.
Even with the best intentions, Iraq will not go away soon. North Korea and Iran are playing peek-a-boo with their nuclear programmes, Israel and the Palestinians are continuing their never-ending dispute, and China is moving ahead with its unstoppable growing strength. Russia, which was almost forgotten by the West for a few years, is irritably demanding the restoration of its position as a great power.
Will the Europeans, for their part, be able to fulfil the expectations that emerge in the United States about improving relations?
It is emphasised in Washington that the new holder of the White House might fsce more expectations from Europe than what the old continent is willing, or even able to accommodate. Expectations apply above all to crisis management and the development of military capabilities.
The key word is "capabilities", or in this connection, specifically military capabilities. This is the most frequent word repeated to European guests especially in the Pentagon, but not only there. The resources of the United States have been stretched to the limit in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. Especially in Afghanistan Washington would urgently want to have significant help.
The Americans are probably destined to be disappointed in those expectations. The defence budgets in the EU and in the European member states of NATO are not showing any sign of significant growth. If capabilities are developed, savings must take place elsewhere. In theory, it should not be overwhelmingly difficult - the combined European defence costs are not so insignificant, and there are several hundreds of thousands of soldiers - but in practice, progress has been very slow.
However, something can be achieved simply by improving the overall atmosphere. Hopes were raised in the United States by the change in the French presidency, and the reception that Nicolas Sarkozy got in the US Congress during his first visit was downright joyful. The old US-French resentments were wiped away for at least a short time. French fries and French wines again tasted good even to patriotic Americans.
It will be easier to deal with the backlog of problems if there is at least an attempt on both shores of the Atlantic to remain constructive. Nowadays this is enthusiastically recognised on both sides. One expert in Washington expressed this in a somewhat melodramatic fashion: "We have looked into the abyss of what would be the world without the West". A colleague in Paris said in more prosaically: "The unity of the Western world is of primary importance in the new century."
Factors favouring a real, long-term improvement of relations between the two shores of the Atlantic are already gathering.
First of all, the wayward voyage of the American neo-conservatives seems to be over. One of the big riddles of Bush's first term is how easily and with how little consideration this president accepted a foreign policy doctrine that was foreign to him - a doctrine whose nearly every basic premise soon proved to be erroneous.
The takeover of Iraq did not end prove to be a starting signal for converting the whole Islamic world in the direction desired by Washington.
The unilateral attack did not end up bringing an admiring world behind the Untied States in retrospect.
International organisations like the UN proved not to be a mere irritant. On the contrary, if used correctly, they would have been of great use.
The elected leadership of the Palestinians did not prove willing to succumb before Israel's demands.
The moral authority of the Untied States could not withstand the exceptions that the President took in violating Western values and international law - and so on.
In Bush's second term Washington has retreated, step by step, from what has proven to be its preposterous ideology. An unfortunate exception to this trend is in violations of basic human rights. This president and his closest aides continue to tenaciously refuse to recognise the damage that these actions have caused the reputation of the United States.
A return to the Western community of values in the true sense of the word will become possible only when illegal arrests, hiding prisoners in secret detention, and the torture of suspects have ended.
This is the message that the West Europeans finally have to make Washington understand. Fortunately all three presidential candidates can be expected to show better consideration than Bush, to say nothing of Vice President Richard Cheney.
In all other resects, the foreign policy of the Untied States has already begun to show more moderation, and to move back toward the paths of the previous presidents. The change is so great that one American expert warned, for that very reason, not to expect anything tumultuous from the change in presidents. The United States is clearly displaying more consideration in its foreign policy than it did during Bush's first term. It will not give up defending its interests even under the leadership of his successor.
Of course it will not. Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the magnitude of the possible changes. There has been reform to the policies of Bush, but the clumsiness and incompetence of his administration remain unchanged. Trust both at home and around the world have gone, and will not be fixed by January next year. The change in presidents will certainly not be followed by a idyllic century, but one thing and another can certainly be expected.
A prerequisite for this is naturally, that the European Union would also manage to develop a minimum of consistency and unity in foreign policy.
One might wish that the signs on this side of the Atlantic were more auspicious. Cooperation between Sarkozy's Paris especially with London and Berlin would give the EU direction, but both British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French Chancellor Angela Merkel seem to be sinking ever deeper into their domestic difficulties.
Experts are hard to find in Brussels, Paris, or Washington who would expect very much from the cooperation of the big three in the EU. As for the EU as an organisation, the distribution of power among the new EU President, foreign policy envoy, and the Commission remains a considerable riddle, which may take years of work to unravel.
It is also unclear how much change Sarkozy really intends to bring to the attitudes of Paris. In Washington there are already complaints that the fist positive signals have not been reinforced through significant practical actions. The President is not revealing his plans even to those who are closest to him.
Hints from Sarkozy that France might return to the integrated defence of NATO are seen as positive in Washington, but not particularly earth-shattering. The Americans respond coolly that if France wants concessions in return, granting them is more up to the British and the Germans than the Americans. If a return corresponds to the interests of France, there need not be any cost to pay.
However, it is still interesting that France continues to be increasingly willing to think about building European defence together with the United States, and not against it. The French Mission at NATO headquarters in Brussels has stopped limiting itself to obstructionism. The change makes it easier to control the complicated relationship between NATO and the EU's European Security and Defence Policy, the ESDP.
Nevertheless, the greatest obstacle to the development of cooperation between NATO and the EU has not been French stubbornness or American suspicions for a very long time. Time and time again, it has been the unwillingness of the EU member state Cyprus to budge an inch to NATO member Turkey and Turkey's corresponding unwillingness to make any concessions to Cyprus. This has led to quite unnecessary impediments to cooperation both in Cassava and in Afghanistan.
In Washington, even high State Department officials emphasise that the USA has no real problems in relating to ESDP, as long as military capabilities - capabilities - can be found somewhere to back it up. Pasting an EU brand on top of the capabilities is a secondary detail for the Americans. At least that is what they say.
Besides, Americans lament that Washington's influence in Ankara is no longer anywhere near the level where it was before. The conflict between Turkey and Cyprus is thus seen more as a European, than as an Atlantic question.
"The EU has a problem", noted one American researcher with anguish, referring to Cyprus. "The Union does not have a means to declare that one of its members is behaving in an absolutely impossible manner. The problem should be resolved."
It is hardly easy, but with raw diplomacy it can be tried. The recent change in presidents in Cyprus gives hope. If this impediment is removed, a "window of opportunity", as the Americans say, will be wide open when there is a new president in the Untied States.
The Europeans know that they need the United States. The United States recognises that the useless bickering in the early years of the Bush period did not bring any real benefits to Washington either.
One new motive to improve cooperation, which is constantly growing stronger, is the increasing toughness in the foreign policy of Russia. People in the United States are wondering what might have been done wrong in the interim years, and what the attitude should be to Moscow's new belligerence. Very ready answers are not forthcoming in Washington. "If we have ever had a strategy for Russia, it has certainly not worked", said one political official in Congress.
The conclusion drawn by a Parisian expert in foreign policy was both narrow and clear: "The more of a problem that Moscow becomes for us, the closer to the United States we should go".
Once the autumn elections in the United States are dealt with, and once a new administration is formed, a great amount of everyday, undramatic work can be expected on both sides of the Atlantic.
In Washington, frustration over the inefficiency, indecisiveness, and desire of the Europeans to have the United States do all of the dirty work is sure to continue. In Europe people are undoubtedly still nurturing the belief that more diplomatic wisdom has been bestowed on this side of the Atlantic than the other one. What is new is that nobody seems to be striving for an advantage by exaggerating the differences.
Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 8.3.2008
Pentti Sadeniemi, long-term leader writer and international affairs columnist at Helsingin Sanomat is retiring at Easter. He recently spent two weeks in Paris, Brussels, and Washington. He wrote a two-part article on the basis of the meetings he held during his trip. The second part will appear among our weekly articles next week.
PENTTI SADENIEMI / Helsingin Sanomat
pentti.sadeniemi@hs.fi
|
| 11.3.2008 - THIS WEEK |
 Europe and United States reaching out to each other again |
|
