The EU and its rise Posted by Max Bergmann

The announcement today of the creation of a pro-EU Serb government that will push for inclusion in the European Union represents a massive achievement. Serbia has a long way to go – but its eventual integration, and the Balkans as a whole into Europe, represent a tremendous achievement - one that represents the tremendous pull of the European Union.

Yet go to a Washington foreign policy conference today where the discussion is focused on the future of U.S. foreign policy (or read an excellent discussion of grand strategy on this blog) and there are a few standard issues that are usually covered - the rise of China and Asia, U.S. policy toward the Middle East and terrorism, and now interestingly enough energy and climate. These are all important issues, but usually missing in this vision of the issues of the future is any discussion for Europe and its budding political system of the EU. In fact the main thing that the emergence of the EU has meant for the United States foreign policy community is that over the last decade it really hasn’t had to worry about Europe. A part from occasional bouts of panic that erupted as Kosovo became independent, or when NATO turned over security for Bosnia to the EU – our foreign policy community just hasn’t had to pay much attention to the continent.

One of the things I liked about Parag Khanna's piece on geopolitics in the New York Times Magazine is he does the considerably rare thing of acknowledging the existence of the European Union. While conservative foreign policy thinkers have always dismissed the importance of the EU, the progressive foreign policy establishment has really not been much better. Most still abide by the view that the EU should not duplicate or infringe upon NATO and will point to the importance of continued enlargement of the EU into the Balkans and Turkey, but few actually seem to think that Europe will have any real role in foreign affairs besides sometimes backing the U.S. when we want to attack someone. We don’t really have any real grasp of what the emergence of the EU means for the U.S. 

This came through in Jamie Rubin’s current Foreign Affairs piece where he provides a good run down of the divisions and problems besetting transatlantic relations. His main recommendation – a fairly standard one - is that we need to emphasize this relationship more highly, take European views into account, and take action on Guantanamo and climate change. This is all well and good. But it also strikes me as lacking.

In some ways Rubin’s article could have well been in a 1998 Foreign Affairs as a 2008. To many foreign policy analysts the only thing that has changed in the transatlantic relationship is that Bush acted like a jerk. This analysis misses the massive changes that have occurred in Europe and by failing to recognize those, subsequently Rubin’s recommendations do little to actually reinvigorate the vaunted transatlantic alliance. In fact, one of the main recommendations – one that is fairly standard for American progressives to make – is the one which would have the most hope for reinvigorating an aging relationship – and that’s promoting European integration.

Yet promoting the EU is not just about promoting expansion anymore. It is also about supporting efforts to encourage Europe to act as one. Unfortunately, the thrust of Rubin’s focus does little to address and in fact may worsen the problem.

I am taking about NATO. It is standard among American progressives that when emphasizing the need to “reinvigorate” the transatlantic alliance we talk about the need to elevate NATO. Our window into working with Europe on security issues is through NATO and we seek to ensure that this is the window in which Europe deals with us. The problem is that NATO is not about European integration – in fact putting NATO as a top American priority has hurt efforts to develop a common EU defense force. Both Clinton and Bush have consistently opposed efforts by the EU to develop their own defense capacity on the grounds that it will duplicate NATO efforts and weaken the alliance. Well the result is that the NATO Alliance is weak, Europeans don’t care about it, but they are divided between about where to allocate defense resources.  Both the EU and NATO are creating a rapid reaction force – and many of the troops used for each force are often the same!

An important shift in U.S. policy would be to support the creation of a European defense force and to encourage the EU to act more in the world. As Europe gradually consolidates its focus will increasingly turn abroad. The EU is already one of the largest aid donors in the world and it has tremendous global economic clout since it acts as one massive trading bloc. Our relationship with the EU will be vital going forward so maybe its time to start mentioning it.

Comments

[Peace]

The United States has not be helpful in the process of creating a unified European Defense force. By trying to expand NATO eastward it has led to fissures between Eastern European nations, who favor expansion, and the Western European nations, who oppose it. This divide between the pro-American former Warsaw Bloc nations and the Western European nations has prevented any coherent unified European foreign policy. Despite these problems in creating a unified foreign policy, the EU does a better job at democracy promotion by organizing local democratic forces and by talking to groups that the West does not condone like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

[Zathras]

The argument here is interesting, though unpersuasive (what's in it for the United States to turn its back on NATO, in which it is represented, in favor of a European defense force in which it would not be, while the NATO Afghan campaign is still going on?) It deserves additional discussion.

But not here. Mere hours after going up, this post is already buried under Obama campaign polemics; in blogospheric terms, it's invisible.

[David Billington]

A serious European defense force would duplicate NATO and would raise decision-making problems that cannot be resolved without closer political integration of the EU. This isn't likely to happen unless the United States withdraws to its own hemisphere or proves unable or incompetent to provide the alliance with the security or leadership it requires.

[Mulberry Replica Handbags]

serious European defense force would duplicate NATO and would raise decision-making problems that cannot be resolved without closer political integration of the EU. This isn't likely to happen unless the United States withdraws to its own hemisphere or proves unable or incompetent to provide the alliance with the security or leadership it requires.

[fake Bvlgari Jewelry]

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

You are currently signed in as (nobody). Sign Out

[luxury watches]

I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch

[Nightly Business Report]

I am not much into reading, but somehow I got to read lots of articles on your blog. Its amazing how interesting it is. Thanks!

[Ken Cabral]

thanks info in this article is very good and interesting with the presence blogengine the more crowded world of blogs ..

[Mykalai Kontilai]

The redefinition of the American–European relationship is an ongoing
process. Europe is no longer the central focus of tensions in world affairs that it was in the eras of the two world wars and during the cold war.

[designussion.com]

Interesting post...This divide between the pro-American former Warsaw Bloc nations and the Western European nations has prevented any coherent unified European foreign policy..Thanks a lot for sharing