World's transition proves harder than expected
Nothing is going well in the relations between the new U.S. administration and the representatives of the European Union. Talking about a "new U.S. administration" could be misleading to the extent for the time being, President Trump's mostly inopportune declarations have only given a slight idea about the U.S.'s new policies. But obviously there is already a deep mistrust and misunderstanding between the U.S. and the EU.
Trump's approach to the European Union is not much different from George W. Bush's, when Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2006, treated EU member states as "Old Europe" after refusing to participate in the Iraq war. Since Ronald Reagan's era, U.S. ultra-conservatives have increased their grip on the Grand Old Party. With each Republican presidency, "neo-con" policies acquire a more pronounced aversion to European integration.
The U.S. never considered the EU a real alternative to liberal capitalism (which it is not), nor as a rival system of international co-operative (which it is). The European Economic Community, which was founded in 1958, was seen as a small regional co-operative system by the U.S and only supported the EU so long as it worked as a part of the much general GATT system. Furthermore, the Marshall Plan principles, already back in 1947, have pointed to the need of establishing a liberal international system based on deregulations and multilateralism, and possibly a single currency. Therefore, up until the Maastricht Treaty, European integration was not a political priority in the eyes of the U.S. It was thus not seen as a real responsibility; the Clinton administration even publicly declared that the European Union was "responsible" for solving the Bosnian crisis, already giving some hints about the changes in U.S. policy after the end of the Cold War.
The total inability of the EU to put forward a tangible solution to the Bosnian crisis showed the U.S. administration the limitations of European political and military influence. Since each time the EU has tried to assert itself as a separate political pole, it annoys the U.S. administration to variable degrees corresponding to the problems caused.
Donald Trump, since his election, has received very blunt declarations all-round. This is very new for EU decision-makers and representatives. There have been important disagreements between European countries and the U.S. in the past, but public declarations remained mostly diplomatic and to some degree courteous. This is the first time that the EU has had to deal with such blunt rhetoric. High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission Federica Mogherini brusquely warned the U.S. administration not to meddle in the internal affairs of the EU.
Who is Federica Mogherini from an American point of view? Is she the State Secretary for the EU? Well, to some distant degree… Is she the spokesperson of the European Commission for external affairs? Yes, she is… but what is exactly the "European Commission"? Is it a paramount government for all EU member states? God no… So is this only a general secretariat for an international organization, like the United Nations? Well, not at all, the prerogatives of the European Commission go far beyond the margin of maneuver of a Secretary-general. So we again have the famous dilemma dear to Henry Kissinger "If I want to call the European Union, which number do I dial?"
The thing is that the EU counts for much more than what is visible. After two World Wars, in which European civilization self-destructed, European integration has since emerged as the major success of the European countries. This is not an empire, all former European empires, colonial or continental, have come to the understanding that there should be no European empires anymore. Is the EU a form of Balkanization? Obviously not, it has successfully prevented the total dislocation of Eastern and Central Europe after the demise of the Soviet Union. Is this a third way between Empire and Balkanization? Very likely, but nobody talks about it, starting from most of the European politicians themselves.
The coming years will probably see more and more misunderstandings between the U.S. and the EU. The European countries do have more and more difficulties in accepting an unwilling Germany to lead the EU. However, in such transitional periods, democracies need each other more than ever. So tumultuous relations will certainly not lead to the breakup of relations or the dismantling of NATO.
What about Turkey's role? It will be a very difficult tight-rope walk, as Turkey needs the Transatlantic alliance as much as the single market to be able to play the regional "stability exporting" role it wants to play. So the government will have to be very cautious in the coming period about inopportune and untimely declarations. This will not be easy…
Trump's approach to the European Union is not much different from George W. Bush's, when Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense from 2001 to 2006, treated EU member states as "Old Europe" after refusing to participate in the Iraq war. Since Ronald Reagan's era, U.S. ultra-conservatives have increased their grip on the Grand Old Party. With each Republican presidency, "neo-con" policies acquire a more pronounced aversion to European integration.
The U.S. never considered the EU a real alternative to liberal capitalism (which it is not), nor as a rival system of international co-operative (which it is). The European Economic Community, which was founded in 1958, was seen as a small regional co-operative system by the U.S and only supported the EU so long as it worked as a part of the much general GATT system. Furthermore, the Marshall Plan principles, already back in 1947, have pointed to the need of establishing a liberal international system based on deregulations and multilateralism, and possibly a single currency. Therefore, up until the Maastricht Treaty, European integration was not a political priority in the eyes of the U.S. It was thus not seen as a real responsibility; the Clinton administration even publicly declared that the European Union was "responsible" for solving the Bosnian crisis, already giving some hints about the changes in U.S. policy after the end of the Cold War.
The total inability of the EU to put forward a tangible solution to the Bosnian crisis showed the U.S. administration the limitations of European political and military influence. Since each time the EU has tried to assert itself as a separate political pole, it annoys the U.S. administration to variable degrees corresponding to the problems caused.
Donald Trump, since his election, has received very blunt declarations all-round. This is very new for EU decision-makers and representatives. There have been important disagreements between European countries and the U.S. in the past, but public declarations remained mostly diplomatic and to some degree courteous. This is the first time that the EU has had to deal with such blunt rhetoric. High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission Federica Mogherini brusquely warned the U.S. administration not to meddle in the internal affairs of the EU.
Who is Federica Mogherini from an American point of view? Is she the State Secretary for the EU? Well, to some distant degree… Is she the spokesperson of the European Commission for external affairs? Yes, she is… but what is exactly the "European Commission"? Is it a paramount government for all EU member states? God no… So is this only a general secretariat for an international organization, like the United Nations? Well, not at all, the prerogatives of the European Commission go far beyond the margin of maneuver of a Secretary-general. So we again have the famous dilemma dear to Henry Kissinger "If I want to call the European Union, which number do I dial?"
The thing is that the EU counts for much more than what is visible. After two World Wars, in which European civilization self-destructed, European integration has since emerged as the major success of the European countries. This is not an empire, all former European empires, colonial or continental, have come to the understanding that there should be no European empires anymore. Is the EU a form of Balkanization? Obviously not, it has successfully prevented the total dislocation of Eastern and Central Europe after the demise of the Soviet Union. Is this a third way between Empire and Balkanization? Very likely, but nobody talks about it, starting from most of the European politicians themselves.
The coming years will probably see more and more misunderstandings between the U.S. and the EU. The European countries do have more and more difficulties in accepting an unwilling Germany to lead the EU. However, in such transitional periods, democracies need each other more than ever. So tumultuous relations will certainly not lead to the breakup of relations or the dismantling of NATO.
What about Turkey's role? It will be a very difficult tight-rope walk, as Turkey needs the Transatlantic alliance as much as the single market to be able to play the regional "stability exporting" role it wants to play. So the government will have to be very cautious in the coming period about inopportune and untimely declarations. This will not be easy…