Glass Half Full: America and Europe

A former student, now at a different university, wrote with five questions for a class on United States - European Union relations. Rather than replying just to him, I'm going to get a posting out of it. Come along if you want, but you buy the first round. Let's get going.

1). How do you see the relations between the US and the EU? What are the most important factors in determining these relations?
Even though the relationship is complicated and even tense at times, this is still mostly a relationship of close partners. Many EU members are also NATO members, which also makes them allies of the U.S. Economically, U.S. and European firms are competitors, and sometimes government policies go over the line in trying to protect domestic industries (see respective farm policies, for example), but there are also huge investments going both ways, shared ownership, and other kinds of economic partnerships. So I believe the notion of a "West" (consisting also, for example, of Australia) still has some meaning here. This goes even more for the security relationship, in spite of differences over ties with Russia, and in spite of European reluctance to contribute a lot of troops in either Iraq or Afghanistan. There's much more which unites the U.S. and the E.U. than divides them.

2).Do you think the open door policy (eco and political) is an important factor in US foreign policy. What are the US strategies in Europe (strategic and economic) Are these compatible with EU aims?
The United States has traditionally benefited from the spread of liberal democracy and its flourishing around the world and certainly since the late 19th century (when the term Open Door was coined) Washington has devised policies aimed to help liberal democracy along. One could argue that America's three 20th century interventions in Europe were primarily to prevent domination of the continent by a power (Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union) with a system alien, even hostile, to that of the U.S. In today's world, Europe for Washington is an easy one, relatively speaking. Europeans are much more inclined toward government intervention in the economy than Americans and in general seek stability much more than opportunity, but both sides practice variations of market capitalism and will remain vital markets for each other. Americans may at times lament a lack of dynamism in Europe, and maybe also the inability of "Brussels" to take quick and effective decisions, but certainly today Europeans would (and do) have plenty of criticism to throw back at the U.S. Certainly since Barack Obama came to office, both sides have chosen to emphasize joint interests and policies, which is a smart thing to do.

3. Has the US policy vis-à-vis EU been constant or have these changed? (What would be watersheds: Gaullism, end of the Cold War, German unification, Iraq war, financial crises?)
Europe, or the E.U. has been Washington's primary partner since 1945, in spite of Gaullism (a French policy to distance itself and Europe from the U.S. and Britain) and in spite of differences in the 1970s and early 1980s over detente. A real watershed was the end of the Cold War, because the Soviet challenge, a major tie that bound the Atlantic partners together, evaporated. U.S. interests and attention, which have always been global, became less focused on Europe while Europe became more inner-oriented, focusing on E.U. expansion to the East, for example. But incorporation of former members of the Warsaw Pact (also with NATO) was very much supported by the U.S. The Balkan wars of the 1990s showed how little had changed perhaps, as the U.S. was still needed to bring peace to the old continent. Since 2001, Washington would really like the E.U., certainly its NATO members, to assume a greater role globally (Afghanistan, for example). Given the divisions inside the E.U., the organization's cumbersome decisionmaking process, and especially its inability to speak with a single voice internationally, Americans might get frustrated with "Europe." However, if you look at European participation in the NATO task force against the Somali pirates, and European peacekeeping roles in many other places, among other things, perhaps it's better to see the glass as half full. It is certain that the U.S. would have an ever harder time as the world's only global power promoting Western interests and values, if Europe didn't pitch in the way it does.

4. What do you think is the future of NATO? Will the American stay in Europe with troops? Does the old quip keep Russians out, Germans down and us in still count?
People write entire books about this, as you probably know. NATO will endure, even though there will continue to be people who question its reason to exist. But ask people in Eastern and Central Europe if there no Russian influence any more that needs to be contained. Smart Europeans, those who remember the Balkan wars of the 1990s, will want to keep the U.S. committed to peace and security in Europe also. The German "question," if it still exists, is much, much lower on the agenda today. The problem with Germany today may rather be that its population is so unwilling to accept that certain problems in the world today do still require a military approach. (But let's not forget German intelligence cooperation with the U.S. and others against Al Qaida). The U.S. is a global power, and Europe remains a region of vital interest for Washington. The U.S. expects the Europeans to do more on their own, especially within Europe, but it will always maintain a solid presence on the continent.

5. Do you think it likely that EU will develop a common defense? Will the US see this as a threat?
There's another book. The first couple of chapters would discuss how this is an old discussion and how the Europeans just don't seem to be able to do it. It's not really necessary; or, it's unrealistic to expect respective European countries (large and small) to give up more sovereignty than they already have in creating the E.U. More important is for individual European countries (electorates) to see the need for continued singificant military spending. Coordination and collaboration, which of course is indispensable, can take place within NATO structures. Presumably, this is one justification for the otherwise controversial NATO expansion to the East: not just, or primarily, to keep Russian influence at bay, but also to promote a stronger, coordinated international role for "Europe." If "Europe" manages to do this, the U.S. will not only welcome it (it will be much preferable to watching the Europeans continuing to waste energy on the elusive common foreign and defense policies), it will discover that it is needed to help this process along, the way Washington in the past has helped Europeans bury their differences and focus on common tasks.